The HL decision is contrary to both ironically requiring a wash -- not a "pro-Christian" decision.
Unless Congress passes legislation "overturning" the HL decision, it will be tacit on its charge to NOT promote one religion over another, and, will allow to stand, HL's restriction of the religious practices of its employees by denying them coverage of medical items, regarding which their respective religions, in essence, believe to be religion-neutral.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Is it possible that the SCOTUS decision was based on the "free exercise thereof (religion)" language of the first amendment in relation to the HL owners?
Is it possible that the SCOTUS decision was based on the "free exercise thereof (religion)" language of the first amendment in relation to the HL owners?
It seems a relevant interpretation
But there is no way to resolve the inherent dilemma created when the free exercise of one religion prevents or intrudes upon the free exercise of that of another.
That's why IMO, the SCOTUS should have decided otherwise, declaring that the First Amendment precludes any law being implemented in such a way as to be either deferential or discriminatory with regard to "religious belief."
In other words, the law must be religious-neutral.
Again:
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
The female employees want access to contraception, which is a stretch to call a religious belief IMHO, and HL does not say that they cannot work at HL if they use contraceptives.
The position which is affected by the "free exercise thereof" is that the owners of HL do not in any way or connection want to be paying for or providing access to the contraception.
The SCOTUS is not promoting one religion over another in this case as the decision would equally apply to owners of another religion with similar beliefs.
I respect but disagree with your conclusion about what the 1st Amendment does and does not mean in this case
Many seem to think that the First Amendment is an impediment to our elevation to a better society,
That's your editorial comment of a view.
Here's mine.
While much of law is intended to be utilitarian, religious tenets tend to be dogmatic and self-serving, exclusionary, discriminatory and riding free on the tax payer. Beyond the "golden rule," organized religion is superfluous and, with a huge set of downsides as history has recognized.
Name one act of human kindness, decency and/or love that could not be extended in the complete absence of religion and without the downsides.
Reader Poll: Should there be the death penalty for blasphemy?
Can Atheists' beliefs be sincere?
Y/N?
(We report-- you deicide!)
The Bill of Rights is Haram!
Yup-- Hobby Lobby be listening!
Not all "speech" is protected by the First Amendment nor does the phrase "freedom of religion" appear.
FIRST AMENDMENT
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individuals religious practices .
The HL decision is contrary to both ironically requiring a wash -- not a "pro-Christian" decision.
Unless Congress passes legislation "overturning" the HL decision, it will be tacit on its charge to NOT promote one religion over another, and, will allow to stand, HL's restriction of the religious practices of its employees by denying them coverage of medical items, regarding which their respective religions, in essence, believe to be religion-neutral.
It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government .
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A Mac
Is it possible that the SCOTUS decision was based on the "free exercise thereof (religion)" language of the first amendment in relation to the HL owners?
It seems a relevant interpretation
But there is no way to resolve the inherent dilemma created when the free exercise of one religion prevents or intrudes upon the free exercise of that of another.
That's why IMO, the SCOTUS should have decided otherwise, declaring that the First Amendment precludes any law being implemented in such a way as to be either deferential or discriminatory with regard to "religious belief."
In other words, the law must be religious-neutral.
Again:
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individuals religious practices .
The HL decision is contrary to both ironically requiring a wash -- not a "pro-Christian" decision.
I do not see the conflict you allude to.
The female employees want access to contraception, which is a stretch to call a religious belief IMHO, and HL does not say that they cannot work at HL if they use contraceptives.
The position which is affected by the "free exercise thereof" is that the owners of HL do not in any way or connection want to be paying for or providing access to the contraception.
The SCOTUS is not promoting one religion over another in this case as the decision would equally apply to owners of another religion with similar beliefs.
I respect but disagree with your conclusion about what the 1st Amendment does and does not mean in this case
As always thanks for the perspective and feedback
That's your editorial comment of a view.
Here's mine.
While much of law is intended to be utilitarian, religious tenets tend to be dogmatic and self-serving, exclusionary, discriminatory and riding free on the tax payer. Beyond the "golden rule," organized religion is superfluous and, with a huge set of downsides as history has recognized.
Name one act of human kindness, decency and/or love that could not be extended in the complete absence of religion and without the downsides.
You don't see; you also don't understand.